the bit in italics was actually an excerpt from an old post of louis' (not my comments), which struck me as quite different to the blanket claim he was making now that shiva was 'inimical' to marxism. if he can see his way to dialogue, discussion and debate with the politics that shiva presents, then i think he could do likewise with those of butler, foucault, etc. that he prefers not to read butler for instance, but make abolute claims about how terrible her theories are, strikes me as a step back from the need to discuss the important nuances of these various projects, their differences and their real points of conflict that was in evidence in this older post. (i fear tho that he was prepared to mark out where he liked shiva only becuase doug had already raised criticisms - this then would be making polemics into a a form of enjoyment that is cynical with regard to the content of the discussion, and interested more in the performance of dispute.) angela Louis Proyect wrote: > >The value-system of communalist peoples is much closer to the communist > >value system that we seek. The problem is the transition to the material > >conditions which will allow such a revolution in values to take place. > >Shiva, Mander and Sale have no concept of such a transition. Mostly what > >they propose is utopian retreat from the class struggle. > > Oh, thanks. This is what I was driving at. > > Louis Proyect > > (http://www.panix.com/~lnp3/marxism.html)
